I have been thinking about the suggestion to count lips/flutzs as lutzs/flips, and I am now opposed to it because it occurs to me that it would really discourage skaters from including both jumps into a program and thus discourage them from trying to master both. If such a rule were in place, rather than risk zayaking themselves, skaters would probably just choose to include two flips or two lutzs, whichever then are good at, and then try and fill their jump passes with other types of jumps. Indeed, even if a skater is usually good at doing both lutz and flip in practice, it would still make attempting both jumps in a program risky, because the skater could not know with certainty that they have lipped or flutzed their third and fourth flip+lutz jump attempts.

Of course, in the case of ladies, the flip side would be that such a rule may encourage more female skaters to try and master a triple-axel, as an under-rotated triple-axel would be worth more than a zayak jump worth zero.

I have been thinking about the suggestion to count lips/flutzs as lutzs/flips, and I am now opposed to it because it occurs to me that it would really discourage skaters from including both jumps into a program and thus discourage them from trying to master both. If such a rule were in place, rather than risk zayaking themselves, skaters would probably just choose to include two flips or two lutzs, whichever then are good at, and then try and fill their jump passes with other types of jumps. Indeed, even if a skater is usually good at doing both lutz and flip in practice, it would still make attempting both jumps in a program risky, because the skater could not know with certainty that they have lipped or flutzed their third and fourth flip+lutz jump attempts.

Of course, in the case of ladies, the flip side would be that such a rule may encourage more female skaters to try and master a triple-axel, as an under-rotated triple-axel would be worth more than a zayak jump worth zero.

The issue with this is that it gives the technical specialist a HUGE amount of power. If they decide that a jump was lipped/flutzed and it ends up being called as a lutz/flip, and thus Zayaks other jumping passes, that essentially gives them control over the standings, by denying skaters 5-6 points that they would otherwise get, even if they had an edge call but execute the jump otherwise perfectly. It also doesn't incentivize skaters to go for a flip and a lutz in their program.

To me, even a triple flutz is much harder to execute than a triple salchow, and while we should obviously push for skaters developing good technique, we should also push for higher difficulty.

Then also, there is the skater who does it correctly in practice 90%+ of the time after fixing a problem, but who has competition nerves on the iffy element and flips an edge because they are trying too hard/quicken up timing/tighten up.

The issue with this is that it gives the technical specialist a HUGE amount of power. If they decide that a jump was lipped/flutzed and it ends up being called as a lutz/flip, and thus Zayaks other jumping passes, that essentially gives them control over the standings, by denying skaters 5-6 points that they would otherwise get, even if they had an edge call but execute the jump otherwise perfectly. It also doesn't incentivize skaters to go for a flip and a lutz in their program.

To me, even a triple flutz is much harder to execute than a triple salchow, and while we should obviously push for skaters developing good technique, we should also push for higher difficulty.

The thing is, though, the edge is a HUGE part of the jump. The jump simply ISN'T that jump if the takeoff edge is wrong, no matter how perfectly the jump is otherwise executed. I also don't buy that the tech specialists could basically play god then- it is actually relatively easy to determine takeoff edge on a jump. Despite this I am NOT in favor of extreme sanctions like making a jump have zero credit as violating the Zayak rule- I think that would kill any desire people might have to try to fix a jump and would be too harsh on those who can usually do a jump correctly but occasionally botch it. However, as I've said before in the thread, the penalty as it stands is practically nonexistent and also gives skaters no incentive to fix flutz/lip problems. It should be penalized more heavily to provide that incentive and to properly reward skaters who either can do both OR who admit they can't do one or the other and therefore are honest enough not to fake it into their program.

However, as I've said before in the thread, the penalty as it stands is practically nonexistent and also gives skaters no incentive to fix flutz/lip problems. It should be penalized more heavily to provide that incentive and to properly reward skaters who either can do both OR who admit they can't do one or the other and therefore are honest enough not to fake it into their program.

But the penalty for a bad flutz can't be so severe that it scores far less than a well-executed double-axel. If a bad triple-flutz is worth significantly less than a good double-axel, then skaters would choose to abandon mastering the lutz and opt for a double-axel instead (if, that is, they are able to execute all other triples, of course). I think that in the scheme of things, wrong-edge take-off is penalized as much as they can be, relative to how other elements are scored.

Now, if the rule changes so that only one double-axel is allowed in the long program, then that would make for a different game plan.

As I wrote above, such a severe penalty would mean that skaters would abandon their flip/lutz and put in a double-axel instead.

Exactly. Lutz attempts for a while were dying off as it is, because skaters were worried about the flutz deduction. I don't want to go back to jump layouts that are 3L, 3L-2T, 3S-2T, 3S, 3T, 3T-2T-2T, 2A, because skaters are worried about a potential 25% plus -GOE deduction on their lutz or flip attempt.

There certainly have been questionable edge calls (e.g. Kim's 3F in her Worlds SP), and a tech specialist with a bit of bias can in that split second choose to make an edge call (or not call an incorrect edge). The edge call GOE deduction is suitable in itself, because it prevents (usually) positive GOE and says "Okay, you landed the jump perfectly, but your takeoff was slightly incorrect... so you get most of the points, but not the BV and certainly not any bonus GOE."

Also, on the suggestion of counting flutzes as flips and counting lips as lutzes, does that mean that a skater that's attempting a flip should be rewarded with a higher BV if their bad lipping technique causes them to turn the intended flip into a lutz?

Also, on the suggestion of counting flutzes as flips and counting lips as lutzes, does that mean that a skater that's attempting a flip should be rewarded with a higher BV if their bad lipping causes them to turn the intended flip into a lutz?

It was not I who originally made the suggestion to count flutz as flip and lip as lutz. Some other poster had, and on first reading, I thought, 'Sure, why not?', but if you read my post carefully, I say that I oppose the suggestion, because it would discourage skaters from trying to master both jumps.

I think the wrong-edge take-off penalty can't be any more severe than what it is now, unless the rule is changed so that only one double-axel is allowed in the lp, or they make the base value of the double-axel less than what it is now.

It was not I who originally made the suggestion to count flutz as flip and lip as lutz. Some other poster had, and on first reading, I thought, 'Sure, why not?', but if you read my post carefully, I say that I oppose the suggestion, because it would discourage skaters from trying to master both jumps.

Sorry, I wasn't questioning you, it was a general question aimed at the suggestion that flutzes be counted as lutzes and lips be counted as flips. I accidentally hit Reply with Quote on the most recent post, so it might have looked like I was, even though I agree with your post.

The best solution is to reward people with all different correct triples.
edge call on lutzes and flips are already being accounted for. The differences are a few points.

Look at Kostner's lutz, 7.3 total. Mao's lutz, 5.6 total.
The difference would be enough to change the result between Mao and Kostner. If they do make a difference, I have no problem with it. Just reward the girls with all triples more.